Hey mate, what did you think? Do you have some agreements with me? :D

Hey, so a few things.

>my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity.

I think this is completely incorrect on many levels. First, barriers, limits, particularity, specificity will always exist. The question is not whether or not they exist, but rather: in what form?

Do you really think that borders and particularity are being wiped out? Do we not live in an age of rampant perspectivism, identity politics, reviving nationalism ("my country first!"), etc.? Are national borders not being strengthen? Is there not growing intolerance of immigrants and refugees? Are more and more countries not building walls? I believe the paradox of globalization is: the freer the movement of capital, the more restrictions on the movement of labor (or, at least labor from the global South countries).

>post-modernists
>
>It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.

I find it funny that capitalism (in the form of neoliberalism) has actually strengthened and flourished in the post-modern era. I think that the post-modern emphasize on particularity actually strengthens, not harms, capitalism. Each asserting their particularity against everyone else creates division, isolation, impotence, etc. We end up divided rather than united. Capitalism thrives on this. We are fundamentally forgetting Marx: "workers of the world unite!"

When we see the world through particularity, we become alienated from workers in other countries, men become alienated from women, straight individuals from the LGBTQ community, etc. Each pursues their own self-interest in opposition to the others. We become divided and alienated and cannot engage in collective action. Capitalism thrives on such conditions.

>I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal

I never said this. I said to "de-emphasize" particularity. I do not believe it is possible nor healthy to relinquish all particularity. We are always particular; however, we can have different relationships to the moment of difference. For example, I can be a Canadian while still existing in unity and recognizing identity with those from other countries. Or, I can be a Canadian who is threatened by and opposed to those from other countries. In the former, I would recognize particularity and universality, while in the latter, I would be so entrenched in my particularity that I neglect the dimension of universality. Consequently, the particularity of the other becomes a threat to my own particularity.

>I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer).

I disagree with this. There are many different conceptualizations of universality. Many theorists now theorize universality as "lack". That is, universality expresses itself through absence, exclusion, or lack. For example, all the various nations exist against the background of the universal system of nation states. However, there are also refugees. Refugees are an expression of those who are excluded from the universal.

I think the theory goes something like this: universality only exists through the particulars and particulars only exist against the background of universality. Particularity and universality exist in a dialectical relation, so to say. Therefore, to recognize the universal involves recognizing which particulars are excluded from participation within the universal.

In this conceptualization, universality is nothing that can be imposed, enforced upon people, nor expanded through imperialism. Rather, Nazism and neoliberal capitalism are forms of particularity that are forcefully imposed upon others and falsely presented as 'universals'

I recommend reading chapter two of this book:

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/universality-and-identity-politics/9780231197700

McGowan, a Marxist and Hegelian, explains it way better than myself. However, while I do find the theorization of 'universality' as merely an absence, I am not sure if I fully agree. I have not developed my thoughts on the subject enough to take a strong position in the debate / conversation.

>the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings.

I disagree here as well. I believe meaning can be cultivated in both particularity and universality. It is not restricted to one or the other. Rather than "either / or", I believe it is "both / and".

Many definitions of 'universality' involve the well-being of the whole. Therefore, those who find meaning in fighting for the well-being of the whole / collective are finding meaning in universality. In contrast, many definitions of 'particularity' define it, at least in certain aspects, as the pursuit of individual well-being. Thus, some characterize particularity as an egoism in opposition to the collective well-being. Furthermore, these theorists believe that such self-interestedness is vain and unfulfilling. Personally, I think we need to find a healthy balance between the two.

>the fight against Capitalism.

Personally, I think the best way to combat capitalism is to embrace collectivity. The more united we are, the more we can undertake collective action. If we want to alter our economic system, we need to act collectively. Revolutions are the perfect example of this. Unions are another example. In both, there is large scale collective action.

In contrast, each pursuing their own self-interest results in the most extreme form of capitalism. Margaret Thatcher literally stated that "there is no such thing as community, only individuals". Thatcher, like the post-modernists, was an extreme particularist who hated universality. Consequently, capitalism flourished, unions died, and collective action has become largely impossible.

Lastly, capitalism is upheld by individuals not caring about each other. When we care for each other, diminish our egotistical pursuits, and focus on the well-being of the collective, capitalism fails. It is our egoism that upholds capitalism. Capitalism would collapse if everyone in society was a minimalist hippie.

>Labelling (or correctly identifying, words which you may prefer) these identities as constructs does not negate them

It does and does not negate them. Any definition of these identities put forward can be negated and shown to be inadequate.

>These identities as constructs still retain power, they still retain use. They contribute to our collective intersubjectivity.

I fully agree

>is a falsity?

For clarity, I do not think identities are a falsity. I believe that identities do exist. I also believe that God exists. However, I believe that identities and God exist as social constructs; they are social products of the collectivity. I also think identities are beneficial in many ways. As you say and recognize, identities contributes to our collective intersubjectivity by allowing us to understand the other as part of a collective "We" and this is important.

One of my issues with identities is that they are often taken for being fixed objectivities, or in other words, they become for many people reifications. This happens when people make claims such as: "I am what I am". They completely neglect how they are in a process of becoming, that their identity is not fixed but fluid / changing, that their identity exists through opposition to a contrary identity, and that all of this is the result of a historical process.

>I do not think that your real contention with my identities is that they are constructions.

From your last posting, I believe that people are criticizing your usage of identity because you are using it to justify exclusionary practices and unequal treatment. I do not believe that abstract identity categorizations such as "man / women", "American / Mexican" justifies such forms of unequal treatment.

On the contrary, I believe that we need to enlarge our collectivities and attempt to include more and more within a collective "We". All of our particular identities (national, gender, etc. ) exist against the background of this collective 'We', but many people overwhelmingly fail to recognize this background because they are entrenched in their particular identity. The more we de-emphasize the particular, the better we can connect to the universal. There is a pressing need to grow our collective intersubjectivity and encompass more people within our intersubjective relations. Entrenching oneself in one's particular identity is a barrier to this. It sets up an "us vs them" dynamic which is grounded in relations of force.

>I would privilege Chinese people if I were Chinese, or females if I were female

I agree with you. Because I am an American male, I too privilege men over women and Americans over all other nations. America and men first! (face palm and /s)

>If I am what I am

Are you not ignoring how your identities are constructs?

I like your questions

>In colonial America

When did America stop being colonial?

>The real problem is going to be what it has always been, lack of equality, justice, intelligence within the social order

A lack of a sense of community too.

Rampant individualism goes hand in hand with inequality, injustice, false consciousness, etc.

>how fragmented one’s mind is

What does this mean?

I am extremely political actually. My main work involves attempting to abolish taxes and defending the thought of Ayn Rand.

Philosophy, for me, is a tool that involves using logical reason to promote and defend one's egotistical interests.

I usually try to make up nonsense then logically defend it

You can look up the case on google. It is public.

> they heavily favored the Titans of the industries and Greatly hindered the smaller companies.

Yes I am in agreement with you. The large corporations definitely benefited while the small businesses suffered.

>I did not mean to imply any value judgment on the covid restrictions,

Alright, my apologies. I wrongly ascribed a normative judgement to you. I believe I ascribed that judgement because during the pandemic I met a lot of people who advocated lifting all restrictions due to the restrictions harming some businesses while benefiting others.

>As for capitalism, ultimately there hasn’t been any company that’s infallible through time. Even something like Amazon isn’t infallible. So on the side of the companies, I don’t think theres any proof of a company that’s lasted long enough to accumulate to the point of true monopolization.

Yes, I agree. I think 'monopolization' is too strong a word for what I was trying to convey. The phenomena I was attempting to describe was merely the decreasing competition and increasing oligopolic market structure. The global market structure is increasingly taking the form of an oligopoly where a fewer number of firms disproportionally capture the majority of the market share. I think capitalism naturally moves in this direction.

It seems we have some disagreements.

>Forced all the smaller business to shut down while letting the bigger ones stay open.

I take it that you perceive the Covid restrictions to have been pretty awful government policy because it benefited some businesses while harming other. Myself, on the other hand, believe that the Covid restrictions were a necessary enactment for the safety of the population, regardless of which businesses did or did not benefit from it. If so businesses benefited more than others during this temporary period of Covid regulation, then so be it.

>the governments of the world basically ensured everything is monopolized.

However, as a general statement, I believe this to be 100% correct. By governments implementing a liberal social organization, governments definitely contribute to the monopolization of industry. This is how capital and capitalism work, the unending movement towards monopolization.

I agree that greed, attempted monopolization, and ruthless business practices are part of industry

That friends and society are so low on Canada's list displays how individualistic Canada is

Wow, freedom barely made it on the list for any country

Bill Gates literally got taken to court by the US government for actively monopolizing Microsoft and lost.